Links for 5/25 podcast - Miles Mathis, Faked Assassinations
- Thread starter Jerry Russell
- Start date
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
Excellent breakdown on M Mathis' Lennon paper- It's unfortunate that the film in question isn't available- I still can't fathom why such a film would be made- Or allowed to be made- Is Lennon unable to let go of the past, like Beatle fans in general? Maybe the McCartney franchise, which is still running strong with three hour concerts and all the fame in the world, has stirred an old rivalry between the two- Presumably the Paul character would be in on the Lennon ruse- The fact that Paul now sings some of John's hits probably irks Lennon no end, but what can he do about it? Hide in plain sight as his own impersonator? That's a version of Hell even Dante would blanche at-
The movie isn't available from the usual sources (Netflix, Amazon etc.) but I found that it is for sale for $22 at the movie's own website:
http://lethimbethemovie.com
So I decided to buy a copy. My payment was routed from paypal direct to the producer, Peter McNamee. Mathis is convinced that this is an alias for Lennon himself! And I wouldn't begrudge him the money, whether McNamee is really The Man Himself or not.
We've been told that the movie can also be downloaded from the usual bittorrent bootleg sites.
http://lethimbethemovie.com
So I decided to buy a copy. My payment was routed from paypal direct to the producer, Peter McNamee. Mathis is convinced that this is an alias for Lennon himself! And I wouldn't begrudge him the money, whether McNamee is really The Man Himself or not.
We've been told that the movie can also be downloaded from the usual bittorrent bootleg sites.
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
Please post a review once you've seen it- Watching the few clips of "Staycer" online, it is frightening to consider Lennon really, truly may have faked his death- And that would give a great deal of credence to many other suspected hoaxes-
Mike Dexter
Member
The name "Peter McNamee" is similar to the pseudonym Allan Smithee, used by film directors who wish to disown their role as director of a film.
Well, I think a fake Lennon's death theory seems pretty far-fetched. The guy in question (Mark Staycer) could simply be a look/sound-alike a nothing more. There are thousands of cases of people having almost identical twins genetically unrelated to them out there somewhere in the world. The internet have made this fact easier to grasp and prove.
At any stance: who gives a damn?! Why is this such an important issue?! It is not. You have been dealing with actual important issues on your site... until now. Don't let the your efforts go to trivial waste!
On the other hand, you should look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This is fact, not trivial speculation. Maybe yet another reason to assassinate JFK!
At any stance: who gives a damn?! Why is this such an important issue?! It is not. You have been dealing with actual important issues on your site... until now. Don't let the your efforts go to trivial waste!
On the other hand, you should look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This is fact, not trivial speculation. Maybe yet another reason to assassinate JFK!
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
Having now viewed the film "Let Him Be", I am vacillating between seeing this film as a species of forgery or as a parody of Lennon and his works. I tend to the latter in the same way the gospels are argued to be, on this forum, a satire. If that really is Lennon, the song "I Was There" suggests to me that he was fulfilling an obligation with this threat demonstration, not trying to exercise his ego. The reason is that the song is exactly what you would expect from "John Lennon" and that suggests parody, not forgery. A good forgery will almost subconsciously incorporate a contemporaneous psychological layer to appeal to the emotions today. That song is all nostalgia encased in mid-seventies, pitch perfect "Lennon". It's as if he hadn't moved a foot away from Walls and Bridges/Double Fantasy in 30 years. That also suggests to me that he didn't write it because he was disinterested in the project but was obliged to the culture creators he's made so much money for and basically phoned it in.
But the threat works either way, as long as you buy in that it really is Lennon. I can only speculate that the growing mass of researchers looking into media fakery prompted this film's creation. I don't think it was buried. It sits somewhere between a good master's thesis student film from one of the better film schools and a Netflix release, but not good enough for theaters. It was placed on a shelf waiting for that critical mass to spread far enough to be found. Miles Mathis found it and has posted his opinion.
The threat of course is if it is the genuine article, what are you going to do about it? You can recreate the plot of the film and go looking for him, but all you will find is "Mark Staycer" and his fake nose, if that, given "Staycer" has played mostly on cruise ships- a convenient way to establish his presence in some small border town now and then but have him never really being around. (Similar to celebrity convicts like Manson who aren't really in jail) You won't "out" Lennon in the flesh because where he really is isn't accessible. Maybe he's in Martha's Vineyard, or the Commonwealth equivalent. What you are left to realize is that MI6, in this case, can create and remove cultural icons and undercut the public's emotional investment at will. You can dig in this sand pit all you want but the space will just fill in again. The only sensible move is to leave the pit.
But the threat works either way, as long as you buy in that it really is Lennon. I can only speculate that the growing mass of researchers looking into media fakery prompted this film's creation. I don't think it was buried. It sits somewhere between a good master's thesis student film from one of the better film schools and a Netflix release, but not good enough for theaters. It was placed on a shelf waiting for that critical mass to spread far enough to be found. Miles Mathis found it and has posted his opinion.
The threat of course is if it is the genuine article, what are you going to do about it? You can recreate the plot of the film and go looking for him, but all you will find is "Mark Staycer" and his fake nose, if that, given "Staycer" has played mostly on cruise ships- a convenient way to establish his presence in some small border town now and then but have him never really being around. (Similar to celebrity convicts like Manson who aren't really in jail) You won't "out" Lennon in the flesh because where he really is isn't accessible. Maybe he's in Martha's Vineyard, or the Commonwealth equivalent. What you are left to realize is that MI6, in this case, can create and remove cultural icons and undercut the public's emotional investment at will. You can dig in this sand pit all you want but the space will just fill in again. The only sensible move is to leave the pit.
Last edited:
Hi Lalovox & Tyrone,
Hmm.... it's been 9 days since I posted my payment to "McNamee" and the DVD hasn't arrived in my mailbox yet. Tyrone, where did you get the film, and do you have an mpeg4 (or other decrypted format) copy that you could put on Dropbox? If the DVD doesn't arrive here in another few days, I'd be willing to host the file on the site here, and see if anybody contacts me about the copyright violation.
I think it's been buried. Indie films of the quality you mentioned, get released on Netflix all the time. Or if they're not good enough for Netflix, they wind up on you-tube collecting ad revenue.
Tyrone, you said that the film "suggests parody, not forgery" but also that you don't think Lennon wrote the song "I Was There". So you think the real Lennon did the performance, but not the writing? I understand this is all guesswork, but why couldn't Lennon have written a self-parody?
Is this important, and what are we going to do about it? I certainly think it's an interesting hypothesis... goes a long way to explain why these types of conspiracies to murder important people seem to be so relatively easy to organize, and to cover up. If the powerful victim is really a collaborator, and if everybody on the inside knows that really no one was hurt, then it makes sense that the whole process could go smoothly.
I wouldn't want this to become a major focus for the website, unless there's proof. We aren't planning a front-page article.
Hmm.... it's been 9 days since I posted my payment to "McNamee" and the DVD hasn't arrived in my mailbox yet. Tyrone, where did you get the film, and do you have an mpeg4 (or other decrypted format) copy that you could put on Dropbox? If the DVD doesn't arrive here in another few days, I'd be willing to host the file on the site here, and see if anybody contacts me about the copyright violation.
I think it's been buried. Indie films of the quality you mentioned, get released on Netflix all the time. Or if they're not good enough for Netflix, they wind up on you-tube collecting ad revenue.
Tyrone, you said that the film "suggests parody, not forgery" but also that you don't think Lennon wrote the song "I Was There". So you think the real Lennon did the performance, but not the writing? I understand this is all guesswork, but why couldn't Lennon have written a self-parody?
Is this important, and what are we going to do about it? I certainly think it's an interesting hypothesis... goes a long way to explain why these types of conspiracies to murder important people seem to be so relatively easy to organize, and to cover up. If the powerful victim is really a collaborator, and if everybody on the inside knows that really no one was hurt, then it makes sense that the whole process could go smoothly.
I wouldn't want this to become a major focus for the website, unless there's proof. We aren't planning a front-page article.
Last edited:
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
Jerry, the video is an AVI torrent thing. I'll see if I can figure out Drop Box and drop it there. My rationale for booting it is this: As a kid I bought Beatles singles and LP's- When the LP's wore out, I replaced them- Then they came out with cassettes and I bought those- Then DAT cassettes- Then CD's- I've paid those guys enough money for the same old tunes- The binary code of an MP3 isn't even a real material object, just information- I paid green money for the gadgets that can play them.
I have the feeling, and maybe this is just some kind of confirmation bias or maybe instinct honed by experience, but as a film grad and professional long ago and an occasional no budget filmmaker today, my sense is that Lennon is a passive presence in the film, possibly tweaking the song(s) written for him, but not taking the lead in crafting the orchestration or lyrics. I Was There is too blatant, and that suggests to me someone else with a clear agenda trying to write a Lennon song with Lennon fitting himself into the material as best he can. What's the agenda? As I said above, it's a threat demonstration. Relative to 911 and JFK, for example, a Lennon hoax possibly revealed is a minor goose chase and a lot more "fun" for conspiracy hobbyists, which is what the Grassy Knoll Society has always really been. This Lennon thing is a parlor game. And it can't be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, especially fact based researchers.
What does this mean in the larger picture? Don't believe anything you see in the movies or on TV. Guide your emotions to places you want them to be, not where the hucksters tempt you. Lennon, like JFK, was one of THEM. Maybe not to the manor born, but a willing tool. Whether he had regrets and took the offer of a staged assassination, who can say? The film just "vibes" an elderly man just wanting to do this thing and get back to Patagonia or wherever he lives. Speculation can be like an unattended six pack. Just one becomes another run to the liquor store for more when you've run out. Speculate responsibly.
I have the feeling, and maybe this is just some kind of confirmation bias or maybe instinct honed by experience, but as a film grad and professional long ago and an occasional no budget filmmaker today, my sense is that Lennon is a passive presence in the film, possibly tweaking the song(s) written for him, but not taking the lead in crafting the orchestration or lyrics. I Was There is too blatant, and that suggests to me someone else with a clear agenda trying to write a Lennon song with Lennon fitting himself into the material as best he can. What's the agenda? As I said above, it's a threat demonstration. Relative to 911 and JFK, for example, a Lennon hoax possibly revealed is a minor goose chase and a lot more "fun" for conspiracy hobbyists, which is what the Grassy Knoll Society has always really been. This Lennon thing is a parlor game. And it can't be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, especially fact based researchers.
What does this mean in the larger picture? Don't believe anything you see in the movies or on TV. Guide your emotions to places you want them to be, not where the hucksters tempt you. Lennon, like JFK, was one of THEM. Maybe not to the manor born, but a willing tool. Whether he had regrets and took the offer of a staged assassination, who can say? The film just "vibes" an elderly man just wanting to do this thing and get back to Patagonia or wherever he lives. Speculation can be like an unattended six pack. Just one becomes another run to the liquor store for more when you've run out. Speculate responsibly.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for going to get the file from the torrent, and thanks in advance if you're able to get it to me. My concern about copyright is mainly practical: as site manager, I want to stay out of copyright lawsuits or other hassles.
It's been 10 days since I ordered the DVD, and it hasn't arrived yet. I left a message at their contact box, asking whether it's shipped yet.
Thanks for going to get the file from the torrent, and thanks in advance if you're able to get it to me. My concern about copyright is mainly practical: as site manager, I want to stay out of copyright lawsuits or other hassles.
It's been 10 days since I ordered the DVD, and it hasn't arrived yet. I left a message at their contact box, asking whether it's shipped yet.
Last edited:
News Flash: McNamee answered my message and claims the DVD has shipped. If it doesn't arrive in the next few days, they'll send a replacement.
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
I'll wait for your review-
The film was a lot of fun. While the character of Noel Snow is an elusive, shadowy mystery figure for most of the film, the focus is on the characters of the young students, Tim and Kathleen, who are on a quest to stalk the Lennon look-alike and capture him with hidden video cameras.
Tim studies John Lennon's murder on the Internet, and becomes convinced of a conspiracy because the four bullets that were fired through Lennon's chest could not have come from where alleged killer Mark Chapman was standing. If true, this presumably would prove that a second shooter was involved -- but doesn't explain how Lennon could survive with his chest riddled with bullets.
Tim and Kathleen are untroubled by this paradox, and decide that the only way to know for sure if "Noel Snow" is John Lennon, is for Kathleen to stay late at Snow's home and hobnob with the man while his shirt is off. Kathleen, cute as a button, has been falling in love with Snow anyhow, and this invitation is too tempting for her. She reports that Snow is not John Lennon, because the bullet wounds are nowhere to be found. But after that, Kathleen runs off with Snow for good. Tim never sees her again, and is heartbroken.
So if anyone is being parodied in this film, it is Tim the hapless conspiracy theorist, who is too foolish to see the flaws in his reasoning about how Lennon could have escaped the murder scene unscathed (that is, he cannot imagine that the real John Lennon was not there at all), and who is also too clueless to see that his girlfriend is slipping away from him.
Contrary to Tyrone's statement above:
Mark Staycer's web site, mentioned in the Mathis article, portrays Staycer as a regular performer in many popular venues in large cities. If someone were really determined to research this in person, it shouldn't be that hard to meet Staycer and ask for an interview.
Tim studies John Lennon's murder on the Internet, and becomes convinced of a conspiracy because the four bullets that were fired through Lennon's chest could not have come from where alleged killer Mark Chapman was standing. If true, this presumably would prove that a second shooter was involved -- but doesn't explain how Lennon could survive with his chest riddled with bullets.
Tim and Kathleen are untroubled by this paradox, and decide that the only way to know for sure if "Noel Snow" is John Lennon, is for Kathleen to stay late at Snow's home and hobnob with the man while his shirt is off. Kathleen, cute as a button, has been falling in love with Snow anyhow, and this invitation is too tempting for her. She reports that Snow is not John Lennon, because the bullet wounds are nowhere to be found. But after that, Kathleen runs off with Snow for good. Tim never sees her again, and is heartbroken.
So if anyone is being parodied in this film, it is Tim the hapless conspiracy theorist, who is too foolish to see the flaws in his reasoning about how Lennon could have escaped the murder scene unscathed (that is, he cannot imagine that the real John Lennon was not there at all), and who is also too clueless to see that his girlfriend is slipping away from him.
Contrary to Tyrone's statement above:
Mark Staycer's web site, mentioned in the Mathis article, portrays Staycer as a regular performer in many popular venues in large cities. If someone were really determined to research this in person, it shouldn't be that hard to meet Staycer and ask for an interview.
Craig_Bickford
Member
I tried to find the film via this route, and only found the usual viruses that you can find quite easily these days when you try to rip torrent downloads off the internet of major label movies and songs. So mission failed on my part. Glad someone got to see it though and thanks for the review Jerry.